Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    June 16, 2011 3:30pm-4:00pm PDT

3:30 pm
it was just a little corner here. no. this is all coming a little bit too late. we will be taking the variance -- taking a dr where there is no variance. this is about converting an industrial building with that is the purpose of the variants. instead of 10, it is 25 feet. >> that is not my motion. my motion is 12 and it is said to be 12 by 10. i think 12 by 10 is the number we are coming up with. we are eliminating the awning. that is what i am prepared to do on this motion. if i get a second, that's fine. but that is my motion.
3:31 pm
>> there does not appear to be a second at this time. >> if there is no second, the motion dies. >> commissioner, you were up -- >> i was looking for some modification, but it has to be more than doing this little notch. i want to get back from the building edge. if that means a formal variants, that is more than that notch. it just needs to be a little bit more. i think that the notch is so atypical relative to the building form that it will look unattractive. >> we try to shy away from dialogue but in this case, we might need to have a conversational approach. so that we can reach some kind of conclusion. we might relax the discussion on a little bit appear so it is more conversational.
3:32 pm
>> thank you. having waited this long, i'm a little disappointed that we have not gotten any traction, even having the supervisor way in did not result in anything. i am quite happy that the windows got lower, but that was such a little thing. i think we did discuss some kind of accommodation of light wells or whenever it was going to be. it seems to me that we did talk about that and now we are getting these convoluted sloping whatever the heck they are and we can't even tell what ever they are and there is no model that we can actually view the relationships of the spaces and the windows and the proposed design. i just say that because having
3:33 pm
all of those ankles, it is really difficult for me to -- having all those angles it is difficult to interpret what it is. instead of just saying we're going to cut back by 20 feet and that would be it. i don't know what the motion should be, but i agree that we can get a few things out of the way. we agree about the parking. it is unbundled and if we could put ann nsr, they could do valet parking and that would accommodate additional cars. the question is, whenever floor is on top -- the extents of the
3:34 pm
scale and massing of it -- it seems the big concern at this point is the rear and how far back to pull that way. the variance is required because it encroaches more than 25 feet. it would still require a variance even if we talked about 15 or 20 feet. >> that is correct. there's a modification under six and 120 -- 134e. it is not a typical variants we would see. given that it is a non- complying and structure -- non- complying structure, because they are intensifying use with residential, that requires the modification there. if they needed for the lower floors, which there will be no change, as -- it needs to happen. what is before you is the fourth
3:35 pm
floor and we feel is appropriate in terms of setback. this is a tricky thing because we are not granting a variance. the zoning administration is granting the variants. i do not have a problem making a recommendation. we have never asked the zoning administrator if the zoning administrator has an opinion. would you like to? >> i don't know if that is proper or not. >> i think it is definitely proper. the two issues that you have outlined here, and i agree with the commission on this, that is not the matter for the variants. i share the commission's frustration. this has been more than three months since this item was first heard by the commission. an hour or two before this meeting, i get a message that i have a revised envelope. i don't know why floor plans could not have been provided.
3:36 pm
i think it is extremely frustrated -- frustrating when we have both parties seeking to discredit each other. that does not impress me. it does not move me and i do not think it has any place in this forum. in terms of what might be acceptable in this case, it is a modification, so you do not need to meet the five variants of findings if there is a lower burden. they are providing a setback of approximately 12 feet. they had 10 feet at the rear. that is 22 feet total. the alternative is to move it closer to the front and they could develop a code-complying a rearguard. there -- code-complying rear yard. maybe a compromise of 15 to 20 feet. i would like the commission to consider this further. >> what is the distance -- could
3:37 pm
you put up the floor planning showing the light well and window configurations on the adjacent building? >> at the two windows on the adjoining property are right here. >> what is the distance back -- the last window you pointed to, what is the distance to the edge of that window to the left?
3:38 pm
>> about 5 feet. what would be the setback of your whole building? >> about 5 feet. if you are considering a more substantial setback, i would ask you to consider how far back that is down. >> it is hard to describe without actually being on top of the drawing.
3:39 pm
>> speak into the microphone. >> you have to bring it back to here which is the end of the ankle window on this day. i think the question from the project sponsor is, if you bring it back to here, how far back do you want to go? >> did you have anything to add? how far back? >> it is very hard to see that without a model. we're just guessing. here is a line and the line is straight. i was interested in the zoning
3:40 pm
administrator's topple way of describing it. i couldn't get whether or not the dimension is 15 feet or 17 feet or 15 and 1/4 -- i don't know. i think it requires more than us taking this wiggly line and saying it needs to be there. i don't even -- does anybody have it in 3d? >> can we make suggestions that would give certain parameters and once the revisions are made, to have someone report back to us? >> the issue is here is the length of the setback. do we know what that setback is? is it seven or eight additional
3:41 pm
feet? >> align has a big bow and it. you take the shortest, i take the big long this -- i take the longest. >> we think the window is about 4 feet back. it does not go all the way to the end. perhaps you can give directions to the zoning administrator. she can make the final decision. >> a window is a glass pane and the depth of the frame to it. those are two different dimensions already right there. i feel somebody who understands that take it forward. >> my intent was to bring it all the way to the edge where it
3:42 pm
turns the corner. >> that is what i thought. >> that's a clear direction, don't you think? >> you are asking to have it moved up to where the plane changes? i understand. what ever that happens to measure, that is where you wanted? >> it not the roof plane, it's the building body itself. i just want to make sure -- >> i think it would be approximately 15 feet. they have -- we do an additional 5 feet to go to the edge of the building. you can verify the plans later. a 15 foot setback. then how far north as this line
3:43 pm
runner? should be an equal 15 feet so they have part of of the rear yard and then it jogs back into the 10 feet? >> then you take it all across? >> that is another option. >> i would be inclined to favor the situation where, since we are talking about impacts, i'm not sure we will see that much of this building up above, though it has to be somewhat contexture role. if we go with that, -- about half the distance, you don't want to go all the way to russell alley, but just along the back there, that would seem to bring a lot more light into the building on union street and might satisfy the commissioners idea that you might want to have
3:44 pm
less of a variance. that would be my direction, if it is clear or not. a 4 ft. 2 5 foot -- whatever measures out to. about half the length of the building in a north-south direction. >> i don't know who has a microphone. >> let me make the motion again. all the things that were included before in the motion, the unbridled parking, with up possibility of there being up to 23 parking spaces available, at least 16 depending on whether it is done with valet parking.
3:45 pm
then we eliminated the sunscreen and we still have the knowledge out of the north side but extended that to about 4 feet wherever the angle changes to have the wit of the building in the direction between union and russell. >> then you better include what you meant. is that understanding what you guys were suggesting? >> second. >> if we could clarify it -- >> it needs to be restated for may. -- it needs to be restated for me. the hold notch thing -- that
3:46 pm
would be helpful. >> make sure all of the commissioners that we all agree or don't. >> that would be great. >> in addition to the unbundled parking condition, there would be a condition that the rear southwest corner had a rear yard of approximately 15 feet from the rear property line to -- this would be in line with the window where the building turns on the neighboring property on union street and that would extend north for half the width of the property. then it would return to a 10- foot rear yard at that point. >> it is northwest, not southwest, and it extends south. >> commissioners? we have a second.
3:47 pm
>> [inaudible] >> i just want to point out the wood of the building is 64 feet. i would like you to consider something less than 32. >> are there any other -- at some point, i would like to know what the mta is thinking about providing additional public transportation in that area. i would like to understand the
3:48 pm
public transportation. there are some people who might be inclined to take public transportation to those restaurants. >> you can check and if it calls for any new service in that area -- >> all lot of this end up falling on these projects and we are allegedly a transit first city. we have to be able to balance out the difference. >> i appreciate your comment on public transportation with what used to be the 41 union running less frequently than it ever did and a cable car which is going to go up to $7 on july 1st. the cable car is not an option unless you're a tourist and have unlimited amounts of spending money. particularly a cable car that does not allow you to use a transfer, so you are stuck. i'd do not think what is there
3:49 pm
is sufficient for people to be encouraged to go there by public transit. with the cab fare is going up -- it is a stretch. i think hanging that out there is something we might want to discuss is a good point. >> if it is a challenging top biography, we should be looking at these access issues, really. >> commissioners, on the floor is the motion to take a discretionary view and approve the project, that you eliminate the awning and on the setback, as it has been articulated by the zoning administrator -- i am not going to try to repeat that. on that motion -- [roll-call] thank you, commissioners, that passes unanimously. >> and on the matter of a
3:50 pm
variant, as well as the conditions outlined by the commission here, the decision is not final until a variance position letter is issued. once it is issued, it's appealable to the board of appeals in 10 days. if you would like a copy, give your address and we will mail you a copy. thank you. >> commissioners, you are on item 11 a and b. >> and good afternoon, commissioners. the product -- the project before you is proposing demolition of two single-family dwellings and new construction of a three story, to family dwelling. -- two-family dwelling.
3:51 pm
this is the site right here. there is one building at the front of a lot, a single story, single-family residence. it is a bit of a stretch to call it a single family residence. it only contains one bedroom. at the rear of the lot, there is a two-story structure with three bedrooms. from the site plan in your package, the proposal would be to demolish those two buildings and construct a three story, two-unit building that would have one additional bedroom for a total of five bedrooms. at this time, staff would like to recommend approval of the demolition and approval of the new construction. staff feels the project would demolish a structure within the existing rear yard area and therefore restore open space. no tenants would be displaced by this project. the project would actually
3:52 pm
create a better designed family- sized dwelling unit. on balance, it is actually better in keeping with the neighborhood character and appropriately fills the site. i would be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. project sponsor? if you have any thing -- if you have anything to share with us at this time? >> i am the project sponsor. i just wanted to share the story behind why we are trying to achieve this project. i grew up on this very property 40 years ago. this has been my home since 1972 or 1973. in wanting to keep this in my family, we are looking for a place to move in the city. i have two young children of my
3:53 pm
own and it has sentimental value for me. the property is unfortunately not big enough to accommodate my family size at this point. also, my father used to say, it was unsafe because there it is that bungalow they used to be in front of view between the 23 story homes. i grew up on the property in the back. -- between the two three-story homes. we now propose to have a structure similar to the one to my left and right and hopefully this can become a third generation home for my family. thank you for your time. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> i think this is a good project. is well done.
3:54 pm
it will create a fine family home in another unit. the only thing i would say, it is actually pretty good design, the only thing i would comment on is that it looks like much of the rest of the neighborhood has a stucco masonry type approach. this looks more like wood siding, perhaps. you might want to look at that a little bit when we go through design on this and the window treatments, but while contemporary, it looks like a pretty good design to me from what i could tell. whether it takes its cues from the adjacent buildings, i'm not sure, but it looks like it will be pretty well done. >> i agree. i think you are suggesting staff continue to work on this.
3:55 pm
if you could look at the possibility of some kind of cornice line on the building. i like the fact that lines up to the adjacent buildings, which are offset from each other and this building nicely respects those two front elevations of the adjacent buildings. i think that is quite nice. i will make a motion -- >> we can take a vote now? >> approved the demolition. >> are we taking dr? >> instructing staff -- >> second. >> i just want to comment that if you look at the building, it takes cues more from the one to the left which seems to have a little more richard windows and cornice treatments.
3:56 pm
it looks like the one on the right might have been the more recently built one that i think is taking clues more from the one on the left which is 675 -- >> that was actually recognized by staff and senior management. we just wanted to defer to the commission. it is a more contemporary, cleaner design, but that can be incorporated into the sec proposal. -- into the proposal. >> the motion on the floor is to approve the demolition and new construction with the understanding that the project sponsor will continue to work with that staff on material and design. [roll-call]
3:57 pm
thank you, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously. you are now on item number 12. 75 mars street. staff will present first. >> it good evening, planning commission. you have before you a proposal to construct a one story vertical addition, rare horizontal addition and at a
3:58 pm
second dwelling unit to a single family dwelling at 75 morris street in the corvette heights neighborhood. the project would create habitable floors below the frontage made possible by a -- new parking would be accessed at their of the property. bellow or dwelling unit would be access from sears constructed on the adjacent right away. the project requires a rearguard expansion at the rear of the building. a hearing was held in november of 2010. a decision has not been rendered on the variants but has expressed concern over the property size and steep slope. the owner and occupant of the property is the adjacent -- the adjacent property to the north is concerned about access to the windows at the rear of his
3:59 pm
building and the lower dwelling entry stairs leading to the adjacent public property. the project would add a maximum of 5 feet to the building's steps above the garage and would only cast a shadow on the adjacent property for a significant time during noon in the winter months. any additional building that would cast an additional shadow at this time of year. the project would not impact the eastern exposure. furthermore, the additional building that is well articulated and set back 5 feet from the property line to impact the request for the building. the entry stairs for the lower unit would be constructed on the adjacent public property. staff has confirmed that dpw staff has confirmed that dpw generally supports the stairs